Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	die_v	life_n	see_v	16,095	5	3.5035	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94360	A sermon concerning the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ. preached before the Queen at Whitehall, April 9., 1693.	Tillotson, John, 1630-1694.	1693 (1693)	Wing T1221B; ESTC R203830	18,336	63

in the next words Greater love than this hath no man that a man lay down his life for his friend that is that he be contented to die in his stead And to the same purpose St. Paul For when ye were yet Sinners in due time Christ died for the ungodly Now the question is whether by this expression of Christ's dying for the ungodly be meant only his dying for the benefit and advantage of Sinners but not his dying in their stead This let the words which immediately follow determine For scarcely for a righteous man will one dye yet peradventure for a good man one would even dare to dye But God commendeth his love to us in that whilst we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us And now I appeal to any man of good sense whether it be not plain that the Apostle here speaks of Christ's dying for sinners in the same sense as one man is said to dye for another that is to save another from death which what is it else but to dye in his stead He that can deny this is perverse to the highest degree and I fear almost beyond the possibility of being convinced And the Argument from these two Texts is so much the stronger because we do not here reason merely from the phrase and expression but from the main Scope of our Saviour's discourse in the one and of St. Paul's in the other For the design of both is to recommend the Superlative love of Christ to us above the greatest love that ever any man express'd to another The highest pitch that human affection did ever rise to was for a man to lay down his life for his Friend but the Son of God laid down his life for his Enemies Scarcely says St. Paul would one lay down his life for a righteous man that is for one who is but strictly just and honest and does no body wrong but for a good man that is for one that is kind and beneficial to all and hath obliged Mankind by great Benefits some one may be found that would lay down his life to save the life of such a Person But the love of Christ hath gone far beyond this He dyed for Sinners for those who were neither good men nor righteous But God commendeth his love to us in that whilst we were yet Sinners Christ dyed for us Now where doth the force of this Argument lye if not in this that Christ hath done that for us who were Enemies and Sinners which some very few persons in the World have done for their Friend or for some very eminently good man And what is that Why they have laid down their lives in their stead And so Christ hath done for us This seems to be so very plain that I do not see how the force of this Argument is possible to be avoided It is evident then from Scripture that Christ dyed not only for our advantage but in our stead as truly and really as any man ever did or can dye for another who lays down his own life to save another from death For if Christ had not dyed we had perished everlastingly and because he dyed we are saved from eternal Death and misery And though this be no where in Scripture spoken of by the name or term of Satisfaction yet it is said to be the price of our Redemption which surely is the same thing in effect with Satisfaction For as we are Sinners we are liable and as I may say indebted to the Justice of God And the Son of God by his Death and Sufferings in our Nature hath discharged this obligation and paid this debt for us Which discharge since it was obtained for us by the shedding of Christ's blood and the Scripture tells us that without shedding of blood there is no remission of Sins And since God is graciously pleased to accept of it for the Debt which we owed to his Justice and to declare himself fully pleased and contented with it why it may not properly enough be called payment or satisfaction I confess I am not able to understand Men may eternally wrangle about any thing but what a frivolous contention what a trifling in serious matters what barretrie in Divinity is this Not that God was angry with his Son when he thus laid on him the iniquities of us all No he was always well pleased with him and never better than when he became obedient to the Death even the Death of the Cross and bore our Sins in his own body on the Tree Nor yet that our Saviour suffered the very same that the Sinner should have suffered namely the proper Pains and Torment of the Damned But that his Obedience and Sufferings were of that value and esteem with God and his voluntary Sacrifice of himself so well-pleasing to him that he thereupon entred into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy with Mankind wherein he hath engaged himself to forgive the Sins of those who believe and repent and to make them partakers of eternal life And hence the Blood of Christ which was shed for us upon the Cross is called the Blood of the Covenant as being the Sanction of that New Covenant into which God is entred with Mankind and not only the Sanction and confir mation of that Covenant but the very Foundation of it For which reason the Cup in the Lord's Supper is called the New Testament or as the word should rather be rendred the New Covenant in his Blood which was shed for many for the remission of Sins I proceed now to the II d. Thing propounded which was to shew that the Expiation of our Sins was made by the Sufferings of Christ from the nature and intention of Expiatory Sacrifices both among the Jews and Heathen to which the Death of Christ is in the New Testament so frequently compared and in point of vertue and efficacy to take away Sin infinitely preferr'd to it Now the nature and design of Expiatory Sacrifices was plainly this To substitute one Living Creature to suffer and die instead of another so that what the Sinner deserved to have suffered was supposed to be done to the Sacrifice that is it was slain to make an atonement for the Sinner And though there was no reason to hope for any such effect from the Blood of Bulls or Goats or of any other Living Creatures that were wont to be offered up in Sacrifice yet that both Jews and Heathen did expect and hope for it is so very evident that it cannot without extreme Ignorance or Obstinacy be deny'd But this expectation how unreasonable soever plainly shews it to have been the common Apprehension of Mankind in all Ages that God would not be appeased nor should Sin be pardoned without Suffering But yet so that men generally conceived good hopes that upon the Repentance of Sinners God would accept of a vicarious punishment that is of the Suffering of some other in their stead And very probably as I said before in

d. Thirdly It is yet further objected That this seems to be more unreasonable than the sacrificing of Beasts among the Jews nay than the sacrificing of Men among the Heathen and even of their own Sons and Daughters Because this is the offering up of the Son of God the most innocent and the most excellent Person that ever was To which I answer that if we consider the manner and the design of it the thing will appear to be quite otherwise As to the manner of it God did not command his Son to be sacrificed but his Providence permitted the wickedness and violence of men to put him to death And then his Goodness and Wisdom did over-rule this worst of Actions to the best of Ends. And if we consider the matter aright how is this any more a reflection upon the Holy Providence of God than any Enormities and Cuelties which by his permission are daily committed in the World And then if we consider the End and Design of this permission of Christ's Death and the application of it to the purpose of a general Expiation we cannot but acknowledge and even adore the gracious and mercifull Design of it For by this means God did at once put an end to that unreasonable and bloody way of Worship which had been so long practiced in the World And after this one Sacrifice which was so infinitely dear to God the benefit of Expiation was not to be expected in any other way all other Sacrifices being worthless and vain in comparison of this And it hath ever since obtained this effect of making all other Sacrifices to cease in all Parts of the World where Christianity hath prevailed Obj. 4 th Fourthly The last Objection is the Injustice and Cruelty of an innocent Person 's suffering instead of the Offender To this I answer That they who make so great a noise with this Objection do seem to me to give a full and clear Answer to it themselves by acknowledging as they constantly and expresly do that our Saviour suffered all this for our benefit and advantage though not in our place and stead For this to my apprehension is plainly to give up the Cause unless they can shew a good reason why there is not as much Injustice and Cruelty in an innocent Person 's suffering for the benefit and advantage of a Malefactor as in his suffering in his stead So little do Men in the heat of dispute and opposition who are resolved to hold fast an Opinion in despite of Reason and good sense consider that they do many times in effect and by necessary consequence grant the very thing which in express terms they do so stifly and pertinaciously deny The truth of the matter is this there is nothing of Injustice or Cruelty in either Case neither in an Innocent Person 's suffering for the benefit of an Offender nor in his stead supposing the Suffering to be voluntary But they have equally the same appearance of Injustice and Cruelty Nor can I possibly discern any reason why Injustice and Cruelty should be objected in the one Case more than in the other there being every whit as little reason why an Innocent Person should suffer for the benefit of a Criminal as why he should suffer in his stead So that I hope this Objection which above all the rest hath been so loudly and so invidiously urged hath received a just Answer And I believe if the matter were searched to the bottom all this perverse contention about our Saviour's suffering for our benefit but not in our stead will signify just nothing For if Christ dyed for our benefit so as some way or other by vertue of his Death and Sufferings to save us from the wrath of God and to procure our escape from eternal Death this for ought I know is all that any body means by his dying in our stead For he that dies with an intention to do that benefit to another as to save him from Death doth certainly to all intents and purposes dye in his placea nd stead And if they will grant this to be their meaning the Controversie is at an end and both sides are agreed in they will give up that which by their own confession is an undoubted Article of the Christian Faith and not controverted on either Side except only by the Socinians who yet are hearty Enemies to Transubstantiation and have exposed the absurdity of it with great advantage But I shall endeavour to return a more particular Answer to this Objection and such a one as I hope will satisfy every considerate and unprejudiced mind that after all this confidence and swaggering of theirs there is by no means equal reason either for the receiving or for the rejecting of these two Doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation First There is not equal reason for the belief of these Two Doctrines This Objection if it be of any force must suppose that there is equal evidence and proof from Scripture for these two Doctrines But this we utterly deny and with great reason because it is no more evident from the words of Scripture that the Sacramental Bread is substantially changed into Christ's natural Body by virtue of those words This is my Body than it is that Christ is substantially changed into a natural Vine by virtue of those words I am the true Vine or than that the Rock in the Wilderness of which the Israelites drank was substantially changed into the Person of Christ because it is expresly said That Rock was Christ or than that the Christian Church is substantially changed into the natural Body of Christ because it is in express terms said of the Church That it is his Body But besides this several of their own most learned Writers have freely acknowledged that Transubstantiation can neither be directly proved nor necessarily concluded from Scripture But this the Writers of the Christian Church did never acknowledge concerning the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ but have always appealed to the clear and undeniable Testimonies of Scripture for the Proof of these Doctrines And then the whole force of the Objection amounts to this that if I am bound to believe what I am sure God says tho I cannot comprehend it then I am bound by the same reason to believe the greatest Absurdity in the World though I have no manner of assurance of any Divine Revelation concerning it And if this be their meaning though we understand not Transubstantiation yet we very well understand what they would have but cannot grant it because there is not equal reason to believe two things for one of which there is good proof and for the other no proof at all Secondly neither is there equal reason for the rejecting of these two Doctrines This the Objection supposes which yet cannot be supposed but upon one or both of these two grounds Either because these two Doctrines are equally incomprehensible or because they are equally loaded